|
|
|
“The Necessary War” - a film by Max Hastings The Necessary WarWith correction of prior failure to discuss Graudenz and Kulm - now added to surrounding discussion… As European(White) Nationalists, we all know that the wake of the World Wars has not birthed favorable circumstances for our people. Thus, we are decidedly less satisfied than Max Hastings that a marked separatism from Jewish power and influence was not achieved, its necessity not even understood; and along with that that a pervasive liberalism should have won-out as consequence, potentially auguring the final chapter for Europeans in entirety. But was it “hubris” for Poland to want its nation back? I rather think not. It’s called ethno-nationalism and it is that which we should support as opposed to internationalism. Germany was still huge after Versailles. On the Polish border, it had lost Posen, Bromberg and Thorn and I need to add Graudenz and Kulm *, while Danzig became neutral. The Max Hastings account introduces yet more discussion of Versailles to make it more understandable as an effort at justice, as it always appeared when looking at the territorial divisions. However, there have been a couple of parties who want me to run strong anti-Polish propaganda. The large problem with that is that for those of us who view White Nationalist media as our veritable news source now (finding other, anti-White media wholly intolerable), a hypotrophied unanimity with Nazism and its antecedent regime’s military campaigns is what we get: for whatever reasons, but probably because America is so German- American that a “by-golly, Hitler was absolutely right!” perspective is all too convenient (and the most popular and economically supported of any WN perspective) in the wake of Jewish and Neo-liberal destruction; and all the more motivated with guilt trips of World War II being most pressing upon them; their having least perspective on anything but a direct desire to throw guilt trips off as entire fabrication: nuances of perspective and history are cast aside, and ultimately, the unfortunate difficulty they have in seeing our family relations and the more relative and complex justice of the circumstance seeds potential inter-European conflict, if not war. Seeds sown oblivious to the fact that we do not care to lay guilt trips upon them, certainly not subsequent generations, they go ahead and try to lay guilt trips upon us for events before our fathers lives even. Just as they want it understood that they and their forefathers were not ex-nihilo evil, but had reasons for their wars, so too those of “Allied” descent wish to claim the same. Yes, there were corrupt forces manipulating the circumstances, but there were also justly reasoned motives. The circumstances were a great deal more complicated and justified from an Allied perspective than The Hitler contingent of WN will ever admit. That’s a problem if you want to treat WN as your media. Because Nazi Germany and Kaiser Germany were not pure and sheer victims, as the salient contingent of WN wish to claim. But so long as their childish and Jewish style of argumentation is what is being served in WN discourse, I am left no choice but to balance things off in the service of truth. There are several sites out there for those who want to take a “Hitler only good everyone else bad” perspective. You will not hear that the German regimes did have choices: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and other Nationalisms, even the British, of course, could have been aligned, willing and able to fight Soviet incursions (had done so already in some instances). Until there are other, or more, WN sites which care for the truth and represent events in the context of their nuance and balance, I must continue to highlight discussions such as that from Max Hastings. In fact, there is much there that one would never hear and learn about if the now standard WN position on several sites - “Germany’s war efforts only good, their people only victims” - were the only perspective heard; and there is a great deal of intimidation that it be the only perspective heard in WN, to the point where the opposite of PC is in effect, to where it is a veritable taboo to say anything negative about Nazi Germany and its predecessors and anything good about the Allies and their predecessors. In truth, of course, there are many things for Germans to be proud of, and some things to not be so proud of. For some reason, that is too complex a fact for some to cope with. Those of us who are sick of that childish unanimity might find Max Hastings discussion refreshing and informative. There are thoughts on responsibility in World War I which echo very much that of WWII. Thoughts on Versailles foreign to WN discourse. And of course the great taboo in WN, to suggest that a German military could have done anything worth resisting. It was of course noble to burn the library of Leuven (they just had to do that, didn’t they?); to do whatever I am not allowed to speak about to Belgian civilians there, in Dinant and elsewhere, to French and other civilians; in Kalisz as well. No, Germany was always a perfect nation, nobody can say otherwise; if you want to blame anybody, conveniently blame Poland as Hitler and Goebbels suggested, or as Frederick the Great might have proposed of his then vanquished neighbor.  The “father of Polish Nationalism” and staunch anti-Semite, Dmowski felt Piłsudski’s pragmatism was naive. They became rivals, but prior to that Dmowski had good things to say about Piłsudski: “He was always the brave boy, son of mother patriotism, dreamer of the liberation of his homeland (...) (...) p. Pilsudski, the intelligent and noble man, and above all a very good Pole” said Roman Dmowski about Piłsudski in 1903. Polish patriot and military man extraordinaire, with initiatives ranging from the cunning Bezdany train robbery to fund the Polish revolution, to the spectacular victory over the Soviet army at Warsaw to the audacious re-take of Poznan and surroundings from the Germans in the Greater Poland Uprising.While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention these two cities of significance in the Polish corridor - cities that were inhabited by Germans, Graudzen and Kump, known in Polish as Grudiaz and Chelmno, this does not change the thesis. First of all, the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that. And how convenient that Hitler redemptionists would not go into matters surrounding these cities. Further, these cities being German would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland. In addition, Graudzen and Kulm were formed of brutal Tuetonic and Prussian imperialism upon already extant settlements that were originally Polish. And finally, investigation into the dispute over these cities only reveals yet more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took in retaliation to imposition of Polish patriotism in these areas. It’s no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists were less than ardent, didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever oversights of mine… Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 03:11 | # Posted by MarkH on December 17, 2014, 09:20 PM | # “there are neo-Nazi groups and activists in Poland and Russia. If right wing and nationalist Poles and Russians are not hostile to the Nazis” Did you see the documentary on the Nazi children? Goering’s niece sterilized herself. That’s terrible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_OL-nY5JA Even worse, Amon Göth daughter had negro child: “and even embrace them,” Obviously the vast majority do not embrace them; the few who have more sympathy for them would obviously be doing a psychological cherry-pick of which Nazi ideas they like and which they don’t. As such, they are doing a disservice to themselves and their nationalism.. “does it make sense to be so hostile to Nazis on behalf of Poles and Russians?” So, yes, it makes sense to be hostile to Nazis on behalf of them (perhaps especially as primary targets of the Nazi wrath), but not only for them. For everybody. We can do better than that.
3
Posted by Jeff Traube on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 23:54 | # Poland was not large enough to lead the anti-Bolshevik movement, and had a choice to join the Axis against the Soviet Union. Poland may have wanted their state back, but their governments pretensions to be a great power were disastrous. Also short-sighted was the attempt to win each disputed border vs. Lithuania (Vilnius), Russia, Germany, Czech (Teschen) - they may have had a claim on each, but to seek all insured they were bereft of Allies. Germany is not blameless. There were Poles who would support Germany in 1940, and most Germans would have accepted the 1914 Frontier. Germany was authoritarian in First World War, and initial use of poison gas was handing their opponent propaganda coup. However, German harshness must be compared to English laxity. The latter has proved disastrous to Western Civilization, and failed to address Hebrew mischief. If only Germany and England could have reached an arrangement to save Western Civ. I blame the English more for failing to see Germany could be the new torch bearer, and failing to come to a Negotiated peace in World War 1 or 2. Even if they couldn’t stomach the Nazis doing what the English did in Australia and North America, they could have reduced aid to Russia and allowed more of a stalemate. 4
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 01:55 | # You are taking a pragmatist’s view in hindsight. If ever there were a time to consider ideal scenarios it is with 20/20 hindsight.
“Poland was not large enough to lead the anti-Bolshevik movement, ” I didn’t say anything about their leading the anti-Bolshevik movement, but being one nation among anywhere from 3 to a dozen or more in that regard. They were one of three nations between Russia and Germany with highly vested (and extant) anti-Soviet interests: Belarus, Ukraine, Poland. You can then add Germany, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and more, even Britain, who could have sided with a defensive effort against Soviet incursions. “and had a choice to join the Axis against the Soviet Union.” Joining the Axis was not an option. That is an absurd fantasy of Nazi propaganda that somehow Americans and other westerners, usually of “Axis descent”, take seriously. Poland knew what Nazi Germany had in mind - going back to Poland’s non-existence after having fought to get it back upon 123 years of occupation. In truth, it was Germany that had the option, which it did not exercise, to join the nationalist efforts of those nations between the Soviet and more, against the Soviets (and the J.Q.) and to allow for their natural alignment against the Soviets (and the J.Q.). Instead, it opted for an imperial effort over them, including what cooperation it might have gotten from anti-Soviet Russians. That was the crucial lack of tact.. Some of the proposals of Dmowski were overdrawn - but nothing comparable to Germany’s aspirations and mostly toward the east (not even as far as Germany aspired). His, as the most exaggerated of Polish nationalists, were aspirations mostly with regard to lands they’d held previously and settled to some extent. though I have heard Belarusian nationalists claim that would have been better for them strategically than a Russian take over, as it would have been easier to gain independence from Poland. As it is, people barely recognize them as a nation but only as an area of Russia.
“Also short-sighted was the attempt to win each disputed border vs. Lithuania (Vilnius), Russia, Germany, Czech (Teschen) - they may have had a claim on each, but to seek all insured they were bereft of Allies.” The fights for Vilnius and L’viv made international cooperation against the Soviets difficult, it’s true. But these had been Polish cities at times - it would have been hard to expect Pilsudski to walk away from Vilnius, the city of his birth (the only option to leave it to his arch enemy, the Soviets, no less), but L’viv had particularly strong ties to Poland; and Poland could not foresee that it would gain area in the west. Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine have the lands and cities they do now, and hopefully they are satisfied. Obviously Poland had a difficult position and having been non-existent for over a hundred years, all borders were disputed. However, I do believe that their policy was to emphasize the fight against one imperialist power at a time; Germany then Russia or Russia and then Germany. Short sighted? Well they hoped for help from The US (which happened), France (which was too war weary perhaps from WWI), from Britain and more. Germany was in violation of international law. “Germany is not blameless. There were Poles who would support Germany in 1940” You say that they were not blameless as one who sympathizes with Nazi Germany’s program. You don’t seem to blame them in their goals and world view but in their strategy and tactics. Polish nationalists who “supported Germany”, such as Pilsudski prior to ‘40 and any after, inasmuch as he did, were doing so for strategic reasons, to take on one enemy at a time, viewing the Soviet menace as the place to start. Interesting point. I don’t think anybody disputes that Germans were ahead of the curve on the J.Q. but the problem is strategy - their effort at inter-European war would have been better directed as spearheading cooperation on the J.Q. - viz. de-nationalization, deportation and prosecution of criminals.
With hindsight we can say that Britain and others should have been more vigorous about the J.Q., of course, but Germany’s imperialist ambitions and militaristic means blinded them to, and obstructed them from, garnering cooperation on the J.Q. As Hastings’ perspective sees it, their economic prowess could have yielded great results in maintaining a then huge Germany and securing places on other continents.
Friedrich The Great, The Kaiser and Hitler were military men, who used military means. They didn’t negotiate in good faith, they fought and fought to dominate. “I blame the English more for failing to see Germany could be the new torch bearer” Nobody doubted their collective logical abilities but their judgment in allowing for the barbarity of their military as a means of extending their influence and interests.. I believe that Britain would not have fought if Germany had not invaded Belgium and done what they did there in WWI. I was happy to see Hastings making the argument that Germany had the power to call-off the war before it began. That was even more the case in WWII. Though I wonder if the same might be said of Russia - whether they might have just let Serbia get clobbered. At that time, Polish nationalists, some, anyway, may actually have been glad for the opportunity to weaken Russia’s influence. “Even if they couldn’t stomach the Nazis doing what the English did in Australia and North America, they could have reduced aid to Russia and allowed more of a stalemate.” Somehow the aid should have gone to the non-imperialist nationalists, not to the Soviets, Jews, and not to the Nazis. International support of nationalism might have been a whole lot more cunning, deft and less bloody. 5
Posted by Haha! on Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:41 | # Nope, Porkland did not limit itself to just Polish land, Dantzig had a clear majority of Germans. It is not just Germany, the borders with Lithuania and the Soviet-Union showed no ethnonationalism, only laughable chauvinist pretenses. The Porkish governement wanted a war it lost swiftly, cowardly polack “leaders” where the first to flee their country. It had worked hard to pissed off Czechoslovakia, Germany, Lithuania and the Soviet-Union, they were too effing dumb to learn from their own history, haha! Sure German gov did its mistakes but I rubbe my azz on Porkland. “Friedrich The Great, The Kaiser and Hitler were military men, who used military means. They didn’t negotiate in good faith, they fought and fought to dominate.” Hahahaha! Bullshit, you lying Pork. Hitler had no intentions to dominate Britain. Look, who is invading? If anyone is coming to Britain today it is Porks, so much easier to immigrate and clean clogged public toilets than solve their own problems at home. 6
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:57 | # Posted by Haha! on December 24, 2014, 09:41 AM | # Nope, Porkland Ok, so thanks for the clue (Porkland - very clever) straight off the bat that we are hearing from an idiot.
did not limit itself to just Polish land, Dantzig had a clear majority of Germans.
Who could be clear from that sentence who you suppose to be the pretenders. However, the borders with Lithuania were once common with Poland and had a common interest against The Soviet Union. “The Porkish governement wanted a war it lost swiftly”
Thanks for your genius analysis. Interesting that you talk as if the Nazis won the war?
..and your objectivity, they should have stayed to be murdered, mmhm. “It had worked hard to pissed off Czechoslovakia, Germany, Lithuania and the Soviet-Union, they were too effing dumb to learn from their own history, haha!” They had nothing better to do than piss off The Soviet Union. Yep. I’ll bet you are a Russian squatting in Sweden. Of course the Nazis, now they were being Good to everybody; they weren’t messing with Czecholsovakia or anything.. You are an idiot.
Try it, punk.
Hahahaha! Bullshit, you lying Pork.
So what if he didn’t?
Nazi Germany was invading eastward, punk. “If anyone is coming to Britain today it is Porks, so much easier to immigrate and clean clogged public toilets than solve their own problems at home.” It’s a relatively small percentage of the population that have gone there, still it amounts to a large number and too many. I don’t agree with it. I assume that you are referring to Poles, when you say Porks, and I recognize that I am speaking to an idiot, so there’s no point in expecting you to change. You can’t. Too stupid. I am against the EU and any European peoples being in other European countries in large numbers.
It’s actually pretty nice in Poland. I don’t fully identify with them being only half Polish but a liar on their behalf? No. Give it a rest you dishonest scumbag. Go to one of the Hitler sites. 7
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Dec 2014 16:52 | # Another thing: I see that you are writing from Sweden. Which means to me that you are a foreigner (my guess, a Russian squatter) there or a native to a European country that needs as much help as any. You might instead consider reaching out for help; which I, for one, would gladly extend to Europeans who want to cooperate and help one another in our struggle against non-European and non-native colonization. Either that or shut up. 8
Posted by Jeff Traube on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45 | # Poland’s policy of confronting both Germany and Russia was madness. Either join the Anti-Comintern Pact, cede Danzig to Germany and enact Nuremberg Laws - or give Russian troops transit rites, throw some crumbs to the International or cede some Eastern territory to Soviet Union - and deter Germany. The west was prudent to be skeptical regarding Polish governing skills, Lloyd George of Britain said that he would no more give Upper Silesia to Poland than he would give a clock to a monkey. 9
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:02 | # Poland’s policy of confronting both Germany and Russia was madness. I don’t think that they wanted to “confront” both at once and certainly not all alone. The hoped for France, Britain and even The US to come to their side. They already were anti-communist.
Pilsudski would never concede to the Russians. Dmowski might have.
Upper Silesia? I believe that you are talking about Breslau? Germany had that, Kalinigrand etc etc. We’ve discussed this. Territorially they lost very little to Poland in Versailles. If those concessions were the point of their war it would have been really pathetic. But it wasn’t, instead it was insane as they wanted to conquer and displace European peoples up to the Urals. Quoting George likening the Poles to monkeys is a little extreme; it goes to show your prejudice and with it, why you miss the point - if you want to play 20/20 hindsight, Nazi Germany should not have been invading Eastern countries which already were aligned and motivated as sovereign nations to fight the Soviets. 11
Posted by bla bla bla on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:23 | # Author lectures before audience in Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLgZAv_Iqo Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof is very sympathetic and trustful of Hitler, isn’t he? Citing all these sincere and reasonable gestures of peace from Germany and no threats from them - just defensive build-up, of course. “Then Hitler made his big mistake.” (oops) “He declared The Czech Republic - in contradiction with earlier promises - to be a protectorate and had it occupied.” All that did was make manifest what was already known not only by intelligence, but common sense and anyone who could be bothered to pay attention to Hitler’s aspirations - i.e., that he could not be trusted, he did not only want Danzig (which was not his to negotiate anyway). To justify and masque Hitler’s aggression, a litany of Polish misdeeds are cited and their historical context conveniently edited. No mention of German misdeeds that would have contributed to whatever malice that was directed toward them, or of land taken by their force, and that the Poles were fighting back to reclaim their nation. I will not claim the Poles to be a nation of angels (unlike the Germans, who are of course, one hundred percent angels - especially Hitler, no doubt), but they were fighting for their nation and they had a historical memory of misdeeds committed against them. The Poles had border disputes all around and readily acknowledge that terrible things were done by Ukrainians and Poles both to one another. Ukraine has Lv’v now. There were disputes over Lithuania and Belarus, partly mixed with the fighting against the Soviets. The borders are as they are now. Poles (including some of my family) lost property and were moved from there. Its history. Its good to be alive. The only Polish astronaut is the sole survivor of his family who were massacred in west Ukraine. Maybe there were more astronauts there who are not to be. It is history. Nazi Germany got their revenge too - even had a policy of ten to one, yes? Flattening Warsaw. Congratulations. No mention of that. An awful lot is made of the Poles taking a strategic train station in the mountains from the Czechs. Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof complains about the Poles retaking Posen. But has no comment on how Germany had taken it from Poland. He goes on in complaint about Poland’s efforts to retake its historical territory and to defend itself against Nazi Germany’s designs (among other countries goals of territorial aggrandizement). A mistake, as if he didn’t have the Eastern Plan in mind all along. Poland was fighting for its nation and Hitler, just as his forebear Friedrich the Great, had no problem with Poland not existing at all - to them, that was normal. To argue and devise strategy for that (in a Jewy way), was seen as proper. Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof believes what he wants to believe, but like the Kaiser, nobody had more power to avoid war than Hitler. Hitler was so reasonable, just had to do what he did, bla, bla bla… But “then Hitler made his big mistake.” (oops) “He declared The Czech Republic - in contradiction with earlier promises - to be a protectorate and had it occupied.” Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof tries to say that he is presenting new information that exonerates Hitler of guilt and responsibility. There is nothing new, just Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof trying to spin it in a different way. It was known (though not to Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof) that Hitler could not be trusted and all Hitler did was prove it through his subsequent actions. 12
Posted by Generations on Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:38 | # It occurs vividly today how out of line so much of WN is in criticizing prior generations. The world war I generation were harshly abused and passed that harsh abuse onto the world war II generation. A depression in between increased their materialism. The “can’t fight city hall” training (as observed by Whitaker, a characteristic injunction prescribed the generation which, uncannily, my father would literally say), was a conditioning of boot camp that ordered their attention away from social criticism. Ordered around, they were were broken, (and it is blaming the wrong side to say that they were initiators), and thus resorted to ordering around others as well - a habit form that had gone on too long through the auspices of the wars. Hence, a reaction. They not only got it from their parents generation but they also got it from their children - who, however, were not exactly wrong in rebelling against the habit of war, ordering and a non-critical attitude toward society, particularly for what had become its compulsory rules ad absurdum - manifestly a draft into arbitrary war. WN criticism of prior generations is generally crass. These people were under harsh circumstances. 14
Posted by Sunic / DanielS exchange on Mon, 02 Feb 2015 02:36 | # The Curse of Victimhood and Negative Identity January 30, 2015 — Tom Sunic
…”a sudden surge of new historical victimhoods, particularly among the peoples of Eastern Europe” I don’t know where Dr. Sunic is seeing these surges but I have neither seen nor experienced them. On the other hand, WN discourse has been laden with the nurturing of Nazi victimology – in fact, this singular viewpoint and historical punctuation in WN discourse has been promoted as sheer victimology, to an extent and with disingenuous unanimity, in outright disregard for European relations.
To Tom, It is not apparent in WN discourse. We basically hear about German victimization. What victim discourse of former communist nations that there had been in the broader public space following the fall of communism would have been understandable given that they were only just allowed to talk about certain things after 70 years. But despite the hard times they’d been through, Katyn, e.g., is hardly lingering some twenty five years on as the first thing on every Pole’s lips, nor victimhood more broadly. We are talking the everyday now, not mainstream media (where it may be more common, I don’t know). Maybe victimology is common in conversation with historians, politicians, or again, perhaps if the survey is of that controlled western media. There might still be a wariness of treating Nazi victimhood - and I have come to believe that is with some good reason - there is a common refrain in WN discourse that “they must be afraid of the truth.” That is a non-sequitur really. It is not necessarily true that they are wary of the truth at all - but the propensity of Nazis to lie. It is ridiculously assumed in WN discourse that only communists would do that. Sometimes that lying takes the form of convenient framing of events, which, if contexted more honestly, necessitates a bit of “historical frame” - which they, in turn, might call “victimology”, for its inconvenience to their preferred framework. The necessity of reframing a claim to historical grievance with a counter grievance can devolve into reciprocal diatribe. Goodrich’s victimology, by his own admission, only begins after about 1942. And if that is the punctuation then I guess it does look like Germans were the primary victims. We could rename the spirit of victimhood into a more polite and academic construct of “historical memory” – which as rule, always inflates one’s own victimological body count while downsizing the victimhood of a neighboring people. (You can check the pubs in N. Ireland with Catholic Irish patrons dwelling far more often on their victimological discussions than the Protestant Brits). The example is not Eastern Europe, but.. Add to that the experience with Communism in eastern Europe, you might get an idea why white nationalists in eastern Europe cannot find a common language. I don’t know that they can or cannot. But as long as they are not fighting and can coordinate without significant conflict, each nation having its own language (even in non literal terms of “understanding/ not-understanding”) is what we, as nationalists, are about anyway. Today’s Ukraine is a case study of the ongoing mutually exclusive “historical narratives” i.e., victimhoods which function as a prime motor behind the conflict. The motor behind that conflict is Jews and Jewish money taking advantage of poor people. The people of Western Ukraine have some unfortunate models for their nationalism, but on a deeper and benign level, their borders and sovereignty should be fine as they are. The intensity and means of fighting, however, have had all the hallmarks of Jewish behavior from its onset. Of course, the big international movers and shakers gladly use those conflictual victimhoods to their advantage. Most of the weight of the problem is likely to be found there and in its catalyzing with Jewish genetic influence in Ukraine. For instance it would be dangerous and naive to assume that Hungarian nationalists must share the same concern about Europe’s future as their white UK colleagues in Leeds – obliged to share the neighborhood of thousands of Pakistanis or West Indians. Yes, but what we might do is lend the strength from their relative immunity as the “good guy victims” of imperial aggressions to say to the former imperialist nations, “good or bad guy”, that we can support their nationalism as well - whether for England in its freedom from Pakistani or West Indian (or other European) imposition or Germany from foreign impositions - that is, we can use that historical memory as a memory that it is history, that it is not, or should not be decisive now. Present day English, Germans, French etc do not deserve to be punished for historical transgressions real or imagined. 15
Posted by Horseshit from Red Ice on Tue, 24 Feb 2015 05:58 | # Horseshit from Red Ice: A clown is interviewed, who says that precipitating events of the world wars should begin at 1848 (and not, say, 1793?) and that Germany was always completely innocent. The kind of dishonest, completely one sided nonsense that is positively dangerous to European relations 16
Posted by Balfour Declaration / Rape of Belgium on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:01 | # On The David Duke show of 23 March 2015 he cites “The Balfour Declaration”, which, as we all know, was a deal Britain made with organized Jewry to get them Palestine in exchange for getting The USA into the war. Alright, war is a Jew harvest and their machinations behind war, to play both sides and benefit from its financing, playing their enemies off of one another and so on is not in question here. However, there are two questions besides that which come to mind: Therefore Kaiser Germany had to do what it did to Belgium, its structures, archives and civilians, French as well? The second question would be, could some parts of The British establishment have said, “The Jews want Palestine? So what? give it to them if they can help get The US on our side. Not saying that’s good, but it could be an understandable perspective at the time wherein giving Palestine to Jews may have seemed somewhere between trivial and a reasonable price to pay - or good, even; particularly depending upon how religious (Christian) they were, with all the scripture describing it as “the holy land, promised by God to the Jews”, it may have even seemed an honorable thing to do. 17
Posted by Adrian Davies on World War I on Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:23 | # Adrian Davies’ take on World War I - military planners thought this war would be quick, decisive and with limited participation, as with previous wars. http://www.radixjournal.com/vanguard-radio/2015/3/30/war-and-memory ....blames Russia’s perceived need to come to the side of Serbia (and therefore oppose both Austria and Germany of necessity) as opposed to Britain’s perceived need to come to the aid of Belgium and France as the key to instigating World War I ...does acknowledge that Germany took rightful French territory in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, thus generating a chronic enemy of France. ...does admit that the German high seas fleet bombarded several towns on the eastern coast of England (such as), Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby (which took place on 16 December 1914)...not an episode that reflects at all well on the honor of German arms….that the German navy had essentially bombarded towns of little strategic importance, killed quite a large number of civilians, then ran away before the British navy could catch up with it. ..calls Max Hastings “the most virulent ‘Germanophobe’ he’s ever come across” ...endorses Mark Weber’s view. Davies must be a Regnery delegate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Belgium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Kalisz
18
Posted by 1066 on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:19 | # Not too long ago, I spoke with GW and almost split my side laughing that he was still miffed at events of 1066. But after he explained…well, this speaker believes 1066, and its Viking take-over creating a class system lording-over of Celtic peoples, is the place to look for the cause of World War I’s conflict! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1yJ0zID_xw ...claims that Russia’s ambitions in the Balkans were the cause along with Britain’s need to keep Russia from taking over influence of India (the empire’s crowning Jewel) created a need to oppose Germany and side with Russia. 19
Posted by WWI in soldier's photographs on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 21:55 | # BBC: World War I as captured in photographs taken by soldiers Post a comment:
Next entry: Go East – Part 2
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by MarkH on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 02:20 | #
there are neo-Nazi groups and activists in Poland and Russia.
If right wing and nationalist Poles and Russians are not hostile to the Nazis and even embrace them, does it make sense to be so hostile to Nazis on behalf of Poles and Russians?